Actually, the false conclusion you just came to is "garbage out", as is also most everything you post on these boards, including what you post below.

For those actually aware of the cognitive/communicative process, in terms of interpretation, one filters what comes IN to one's brain, not what come OUT (though, in your case, the world may be better served if you had a banality filter on what comes OUT--which would conceivable render you mute, if not moot) ;-)

Of course we filter what comes IN. But it becomes garbage AFTER that filtering.

This is how little sense your statement makes.

I see it differently. I see the filtering as A PART of the IN process, and the garbage occurs DURING the filtering, not AFTER. If you are familiar with Kant's view of congnitions and Blooms taxonomy of learning, you would understand that the IN process includes various steps: sensations, perceptions, conceptions, knowledge, comprehension, application, analysis, systhesis, and evaluation. Filtering may take place at or between each of these steps, particularly the first 5. In your case, I believe the garbaged was filtered IN likely between the sensations and conceptions or knowledge steps, but prior to comprehension (since that is where things often tend to break down for you), which is DURING the IN process and BEFORE the IN process is completed.

Now, I am not sure if you are capable of understanding this explanation as a part of "wades world" (it is highly doubtful), but there it is.

BTW, Wade, I'm going to nag you with these questions over and over, so you might as well bite the bullet and answer them.

The NAMBLA organization teaches that it's beneficial to young boys to have sex with older men.

Do you concede that this is, in fact, a totally erroneous idea?

No. First of all, I am not familiar enough with NAMBLA to know whether you have accurately represented their idea (you have a dismal record in accurately conveying the beliefs of organizations you oppose). Second, as a matter of opinion (not to be confused with "fact"), I believe that, on balance, and by far and away (not to be confused with "totally") this is an erroneous idea.

Since your follow-up questions presuppose my answering in the affirmative, they do not apply as asked.

I realize that you are attempting to get me to think and respond in the same binary, absolutist, closed-minded way you do, but my mind doesn't operate that way--and this because I have found it to be somewhat unworkable to adult progression (though quite appropriate for children). You are certainly welcome to continue trying and nagging, but you may just as well bite the bullet and let it go. ;-)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Last edited by wenglund on Sat Apr 12, 2008 3:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.

No. First of all, I am not familiar enough with NAMBLA to know whether you have accurately represented their idea (you have a dismal record in accurately conveying the beliefs of organizations you oppose). Second, as a matter of opinion (not to be confused with "fact"), I believe that, on balance, and by far and away (not to be confused with "totally") this is an erroneous idea.

Educate yourself then.

"The North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) is a New York City and San Francisco-based unincorporated organization in the United States that advocates the legalization of sexual relations between adult males and under-aged boys. It has resolved to "end the oppression of men and boys who have freely chosen mutually consenting relationships" in spite of the fact that such relationships are seen as child sexual abuse where the minor is unable to give consent. "

No. First of all, I am not familiar enough with NAMBLA to know whether you have accurately represented their idea (you have a dismal record in accurately conveying the beliefs of organizations you oppose). Second, as a matter of opinion (not to be confused with "fact"), I believe that, on balance, and by far and away (not to be confused with "totally") this is an erroneous idea.

Educate yourself then.

"The North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) is a New York City and San Francisco-based unincorporated organization in the United States that advocates the legalization of sexual relations between adult males and under-aged boys. It has resolved to "end the oppression of men and boys who have freely chosen mutually consenting relationships" in spite of the fact that such relationships are seen as child sexual abuse where the minor is unable to give consent. "

I would just as soon not dive into that sewage plant. But since you don't seem adverse, could you find a quote from NAMBLA that explicitly states what Beastie claims of them?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Of course I'm averse, Wade. What makes you think I wouldn't be? NAMBLA is disgusting, and your blithe assertion that I would think otherwise makes me sick to my stomach. Please have the personal integrity to treat people who you do not know with even a token amount of dignity and respect.

It's good to know who the enemy is, don't you agree? For that reason, I have educated myself in this regard. Forewarned is forearmed.

Beastie said, "The NAMBLA organization teaches that it's beneficial to young boys to have sex with older men." That is easy enough to ascertain by the quote I just gave you from Wikipedia.

Also, on their website, under "Who we are", is this quote:

"Most man/boy relationships are based on mutual respect and affection, and strongly desired by both partners. Such relationships do not harm anyone, and often entail many benefits for both man and boy. Boy-lovers and boys alike respond to the needs of those they love — needs for affection, understanding, and freedom. " http://www.nambla.org/whatis.htm

I think you'll find Beastie vindicated in her statement, though vindication for your cruel attitude toward others will be much harder to find.

I would just as soon not dive into that sewage plant. But since you don't seem adverse, could you find a quote from NAMBLA that explicitly states what Beastie claims of them?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Of course I'm averse, Wade. What makes you think I wouldn't be? NAMBLA is disgusting, and your blithe assertion that I would think otherwise makes me sick to my stomach. Please have the personal integrity to treat people who you do not know with even a token amount of dignity and respect.

There is no call for you to get overly dramatic and misthink that I was insinuating anything untoward about you. I reasonably presumed that since you wouldn't suggest to me something that you wouldn't be willing to do yourself, that you would be fine educating yourself as you advised me--though I am averse to doing so myself. That's all.

Quote:

It's good to know who the enemy is, don't you agree? For that reason, I have educated myself in this regard. Forewarned is forearmed.

That is wise. I just don't have the stomach for it--which is why I am more than happy to leave such things to good people like you.

Quote:

Beastie said, "The NAMBLA organization teaches that it's beneficial to young boys to have sex with older men." That is easy enough to ascertain by the quote I just gave you from Wikipedia.

Also, on their website, under "Who we are", is this quote:

"Most man/boy relationships are based on mutual respect and affection, and strongly desired by both partners. Such relationships do not harm anyone, and often entail many benefits for both man and boy. Boy-lovers and boys alike respond to the needs of those they love — needs for affection, understanding, and freedom. " http://www.nambla.org/whatis.htm

I think you'll find Beastie vindicated in her statement, though vindication for your cruel attitude toward others will be much harder to find.

So now I am "cruel" for asking you if you would do what you advised me to do since I am disinclined? Could you please explain why?

As for Beastie's quote and the ones you supplied, I see some key differences (and thus no "vindication"). Her quote mentions "sex", whereas the quote above mentions "mutual respect" and "affection" and "relationships".

Now, don't get me wrong. I understand the propagandistic way in which the NAMBLA statement is worded. We can well guess the underline and intentionally obscured meaning and intent. NAMBLA wishes to blur the lines between what is commonly viewed as right and wrong, so as to ease society towards acceptance (a strategy they may have picked up from gays--which they are). But, the only way they can blur that line is by suggesting things that could, in some ways, commonly be viewed as right. That is why I questioned the accuracy of Beastie's quote (since it steps way over the line even NAMBLA may be willing to openly cross), and why I couldn't concede to the absolutist way in which she phrased it. Even in some of the most objectionable ideas, there tends to be an element of truth (no matter how microscopic) that cannot be denied ro conceded otherwise--at least not to those who don't think in binary and absolutist ways.

Now, don't get me wrong. I understand the propagandistic way in which the NAMBLA statement is worded. We can well guess the underline and intentionally obscured meaning and intent. NAMBLA wishes to blur the lines between what is commonly viewed as right and wrong, so as to ease society towards acceptance (a strategy they may have picked up from gays--which they are). But, the only way they can blur that line is by suggesting things that could, in some ways, commonly be viewed as right. That is why I questioned the accuracy of Beastie's quote (since it steps way over the line even NAMBLA may be willing to openly cross), and why I couldn't concede to the absolutist way in which she phrased it. Even in some of the most objectionable ideas, there tends to be an element of truth (no matter how microscopic) that cannot be denied ro conceded otherwise--at least not to those who don't think in binary and absolutist ways.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Huh. How interesting. It seems, my dear Wade, that NAMBLA utilizes some of the same semantic tactics as the LDS Church. You know, they "omit" stuff in order to "ease society [or investigators!] towards acceptance."

There is no call for you to get overly dramatic and misthink that I was insinuating anything untoward about you.

Overly dramatic? That was a dig, Wade. You know it, I know it, and I think even my cat is sophisticated enough to know it. "You don't seem adverse [sic] to reading up on pedophiliacs, so why don't you do it for me, since I am?" Uh-huh.

Quote:

I reasonably presumed that since you wouldn't suggest to me something that you wouldn't be willing to do yourself, that you would be fine educating yourself as you advised me--though I am averse to doing so myself. That's all.

You're hovering like a gadfly at the edge of Beastie's argument, only half-engaging. As they say in the Navy, "Fire or clear, Lieutenant." Why should I do your work for you? I provided you with links, even.

Quote:

So now I am "cruel" for asking you if you would do what you advised me to do since I am disinclined? Could you please explain why?

No, Wade. You are cruel for insinuating that I would not be averse to reading pedophilia. Whether you realize it or not, that was what you said. You could have phrased that entirely differently.

Quote:

As for Beastie's quote and the ones you supplied, I see some key differences (and thus no "vindication"). Her quote mentions "sex", whereas the quote above mentions "mutual respect" and "affection" and "relationships".

Wade, to what do you think they are referring? Are you honestly that naïve? Do you think that the "North American Man-Boy Love Association" is referring to taking young boys on Scouting trips? Just what do you think is entailed by an organization which advocates "man-boy love?" Come on, Wade. The stork does not deliver a baby down the chimney, and "affection" does not mean a friendly pat on the head when spoken by an organization which would like to institutionalize underage child sodomy. Are you so bent on disagreeing with Beastie that you're going to hem and haw over the meaning of the word "affection?"

Quote:

Now, don't get me wrong. I understand the propagandistic way in which the NAMBLA statement is worded. We can well guess the underline and intentionally obscured meaning and intent. NAMBLA wishes to blur the lines between what is commonly viewed as right and wrong, so as to ease society towards acceptance (a strategy they may have picked up from gays--which they are). But, the only way they can blur that line is by suggesting things that could, in some ways, commonly be viewed as right. That is why I questioned the accuracy of Beastie's quote (since it steps way over the line even NAMBLA may be willing to openly cross), and why I couldn't concede to the absolutist way in which she phrased it. Even in some of the most objectionable ideas, there tends to be an element of truth (no matter how microscopic) that cannot be denied ro conceded otherwise--at least not to those who don't think in binary and absolutist ways.

Wade, right on their website are written diatribes about our criminal justice system, and how unfair it is in not allowing them to have sex -- yes, sex, Wade -- with underage boys:

"No group has been harder hit by the scapegoating trend than man/boy lovers. If ensnared in the system, we -- both men and boys -- are subject to a litany of injustices: forced “therapies,” long prison sentences, impossible terms for parole, lifetime registration and community notification, and for some, indefinite confinement after their sentence has been served."

Wade, do you think that these men are serving "prison sentences", enduring "parole", and must undergo "lifetime registration and community notification" because they want to build soap box race cars with young boys and society just doesn't understand? Their behavior is being criminalized and they are complaining about it -- because it is SEX that they are after, Wade.

I already created another thread specifically for the Wade/Shermer discussion, people can continue to post about it there.

Aside from wade, I do think that Shermer's observation explains this entire phenomenon. It isn't unique to mormonism. Intelligent people arrive at some of their belief systems through means that do not involve their intellect. But then they still use their intellect to defend those same belief systems, even if the belief system specifically states that it cannot be comprehended through intellect, anyway.

All Christian sects, in fact, do share that commonality, because it's in the Bible. Right from the get-go, the Bible establishes that the things of God will appear nonsensical to those who do not have "the spirit". It's kind of funny to an atheist like me, because it appears to be that the peddlers of these beliefs built in an excuse, right from the beginning, for why it doesn't make logical sense or mesh with reality as we perceive it.

_________________ We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.

I couldn't care less if Smith was gay, visited the Nauvoo whorehouse like Sarah Pratt said, had a harem of five thousand Nubian princesses, had an "open marriage". Who cares? I sure don't.

Oh, but you do! By all indications, you care very, very much.

You say:

Quote:

The point here is whether Mormonism - really - is what it claims to be.

But then you promptly admit that what Mormonism claims to be is inextricably tied to Joseph Smith and

Quote:

… his credibility as a witness.

And, in the mind of Talmage Bachman, the credibility of Joseph Smith is suspect primarily because . . . he attempted to conceal, to the public, his practice of plural marriage.Presumably, had Joseph Smith been completely open about his polygamy, then his credibility when it comes to gold plates and angels would be greatly enhanced. But, since he obviously dissembled when it came to his practice of marrying multiple women, then everything else becomes suspect as well.

Quote:

This is about one case in which you concede Smith "concealed the truth" (another nice euphemism).

Well, it may be a nice euphemism, but I didn’t employ it. It is of your manufacture. The only thing I conceded – and endorsed – was Joseph Smith’s attempts to conceal his practice of plural marriage from the general public.

As for the general philosophy of “concealing truth” consistent with greater strategic aims, I will go on the record as also endorsing that practice, under certain circumstances. Indeed, in many cases, “concealing truth” is absolutely imperative. You may be familiar with the somewhat famous World War II episode where Churchill permitted a German bombing attack to occur unopposed rather than expose the truth that the German code had been broken. In that case, Churchill’s decision condemned innocent people to death for a greater strategic end.

In the case of Nauvoo-era plural marriage, Joseph Smith’s secrecy also pursued a strategic end – albeit not the one that his critics assume.

Nevertheless, the question remains, is there a logical connection between Joseph Smith’s dissembling on the issue of his practice of plural marriage and the “truth” of his other prophetic claims? You would have us believe (despite your inconsistent protestations to the contrary) that if he “concealed the truth” about this particular religious thing, then it follows that any other of Joseph Smith’s religious claims are likewise tainted. Is this logical? Well, of course not. Except in the minds of fundamentalist exmormons.

Well might we also argue that Winston Churchill is not to be believed when he informs us that Hitler is a bad man, or that Communism is a evil, since (were we privy to the “truth”) we know Churchill is someone who is willing to conceal the truth to achieve his ends.

Quote:

As long as we keep the outrageous lengths Smith went to, to perpetuate a matter which very much was not a laughing matter to the husbands whose wives he slept with, to the women he slept with, to his own wife …

Yes, I can see that you don’t really have a problem with Joseph Smith’s sex life, per se. And, were it not immaterial to our particular discussion, I might note that I have yet to see any persuasive evidence that Joseph Smith ever consummated his eternal sealings to previously-married women.

Quote:

But the truth is, that in any investigation of Mormonism, Smith's reliability as a source about his religious experiences is an issue.

The problem, dear Talmage, is that even if Joseph Smith ran amok in Nauvoo, became a sexual predator, and lied to anyone and everyone about it, there is no logical reason to conclude that EVERYTHING he ever claimed was a lie.

Quote:

And by the way, that Smith "concealed" his sexual/marital behaviour from others does not mean that he "lied about everything else", nor would I ever suggest something so daft.

What? Can you not see how ridiculous you sound when you say this?

This is precisely the conclusion you desire us to reach when you point to Joseph Smith’s public dissembling on the question of plural marriage. Your argument is implicit throughout: Joseph Smith lied about his practice of polygamy, therefore the Book of Mormon, the alleged visions, the angelic ministrants – it’s also all a lie.

However, to those who seriously consider the complex issues surrounding Joseph Smith, this kind of simplistic approach proves deficient. This is something the authors of the Nauvoo Expositor understood quite well. If you read its one and only issue, you will find interspersed throughout it numerous references to the divine origins and authenticity of the Book of Mormon. Here we have a group of men who were there; who condemned Joseph Smith as a sexual libertine, and yet they believed that he was but a “fallen prophet” – not that he was never a prophet at all!

You state:

Quote:

… wherever did we even get the idea in the first place that you could read and pray about the Book of Mormon to find out it was an authentic historical record? Nowhere but the Book of Mormon. And who brought us the Book of Mormon?

Interesting that on this very point, your apostate forbears don’t agree with your analysis. How could that be? Perhaps because they perceive the very things I do when considering these questions:

1. The Book of Mormon can be considered independent of any questions surrounding Joseph Smith.

2. The Book of Mormon has other witnesses besides Joseph Smith.

3. The Book of Mormon invites readers to obtain a witness of its truthfulness via means independent of Joseph Smith.

Quote:

The morality or immorality of plural marriage is entirely irrelevant to my points here. But even if it was relevant, my view wouldn't matter, since I couldn't possibly care less if some dude 170 years ago had a polygamous marriage with consenting adults. I couldn't care less if a dude (or woman) does that NOW. I don't care if my neighbours are swingers; I don't care if you're a swinger. I don't care if a guy's celibate or anything else. As long as the participants are consenting adults, I couldn't care less. I think the Edmunds-Tucker Act was a joke, and I think polygamy between consenting ADULTS shouldn't be illegal now. I couldn't care less about the "marriages" or the sex itself.

Of course, the residents of Illinois circa 1844 weren’t as accommodating of alternative life styles as you are in 2008. They probably wouldn’t have pursued a “live and let live” approach to neighbors they considered to be sexual profligates.

Quote:

But plural marriage is not the issue here, is it, William?

Thou sayeth. Over and over and over again.

Quote:

We could be talking about any other topic about which Smith engaged in "concealment", and it would raise the same questions about trustworthiness.

Again, your failure to understand that, in an adult world, there are times, places, and circumstances where it is not only appropriate, but in fact morally incumbent upon one to conceal information, is a telling commentary on your particular brand of naïveté.

Quote:

His prowess in dissembling on this issue, however, does unavoidably tell us that he was - well, good at dissembling.

And?

Quote:

And this cannot help but open the door to the serious possibility that he did so just as boldly, repeatedly, and convincingly about other issues.

As I indicated above, we may likewise justifiably doubt Winston Churchill’s conclusions about Adolf Hitler.

Quote:

I hope for your sake that Tarski, Beastie, Dr. Shades, and others aren't reading this thread - the people who were around when Runaway Dan Peterson himself refused to engage with ME on this very board last year.

I was around then. I followed what happened. Your characterization of the episode is, to say the least, comical.

If you think you have the balls to venture onto the much larger stage of the MAD board, I’m sure you could be granted “Pundit” status for the purpose of engaging in intellectual discussions of these questions. Of course, that would mean that you’d have to abandon the security of this little pond of sycophants in which you seem to have found a comfortable home of late. And most of all, it would mean that you would have to meet the standards of decorum required there. If you don’t understand what those standards are, you should speak with The Dude, or Dan Vogel, or Brent Metcalfe, who have mastered the art of being a critic without being an asshole. You, my friend, could learn much from them in that respect.

I would be more than willing to initiate a thread in the School of the Pundits on a question that would engage your interest, and instead of us bantering back and forth before an audience of a half dozen or so, we could take this show to a venue that sees over a thousand unique users each week.

I come over here and play with the piranhas quite frequently, despite the fact that believers are the distinct minority here. Are you brave enough to present your “ironclad” arguments in a highly-moderated setting that demands a dispassionate approach?..Finally, speaking of the question of revelation, and my characterization of it as “articulated intelligence,” you wrote:

Quote:

I think, rather, that the important question is the one you yourself would ask of a local Baptist who came over to your house and told you you would go to hell if you didn't leave the Mormons, and who said he knew that was true because "Jesus himself" had told him that. In other words, you and I are in the same boat when it comes to all other claimants to "clearly-articulated intelligence from heaven". If a Muslim told you that God had told him X (that you should join Islam, that we should impose sharia, etc.), you would simply wonder the same things I do know, even though you would know how real that experience was for the Muslim. Wouldn't you? I think you would, and that is only where I am now with you (I'm exactly the same as YOU, with a 100% certain Muslim, Catholic, or Moonie, who also claims to have received intelligence). Once again, in truth there is very little difference between us on this point, isn't there? It is just that you make an exception for these "transmissions" when received in your very own case.

You exhibit an extraordinarily deficient understanding of the religions to which you refer above. You see, none of them believe in nor make appeal to personal revelation. A Muslim would never tell you that God told him anything, nor a Baptist. They entirely reject Latter-day Saint notions of communication with God. Your entire paragraph, and the thoughts that surround it, is nothing but a non sequitur.

Quote:

I think what is fundamentally at issue here, though, [is] … whether Mormon belief, at its core, ultimately accepts or denies the constraints imposed by empiricism and logic.

Why don’t you describe for us how you believe “Mormon belief, at its core, ultimately accepts or denies the constraints imposed by empiricism and logic.” Let’s see if you can make a compelling argument, without making an appeal to the inherent unreliability of anything Joseph Smith ever said, purely on the basis of his public pronouncements regarding the practice of plural marriage.

Quote:

Consider, William, that for Mormon belief to accept those constraints, is inexorably for Mormon belief to allow the possibility of the exposure of Mormonism as a fraud via empirical evidence and/or logical proof. There is no way around this; so I ask you here, in front of everyone:

Is that really what you believe? Yes or no?

What I believe is that you are incapable of understanding that “empirical evidence” and “logical proof” are language constructs used to describe a wide range of arguments – from the reproducible objective properties of gravity to the highly-debatable “evidence” of anthropogenic global warming. As such, one man’s empirical evidence is another man’s unproven theory.

That said, I discern no substantial difference between the intelligence I obtain via “supernatural” means and that which I obtain through exclusively “naturalistic” means. Truth, regardless of its origin or means of transmission, does not conflict with itself. Any perceived conflict is always incident to a flaw in the one making the observation......

Quote:

Hey Beastie

I think you hung around on the long Tarski thread last year about epistemology - the one where Peterson once again refused to engage. What'd you make of poor William's triumphant claim about me being the one who assiduously avoids "battle" with Mormonism's apologetic heavies?

I actually feel sorry for the guy! It's like I'm starting to relive all my own sobering realizations of just how lame those guys really were....ouch.

This is almost cartoonish!

That’s right, Talmage. Get your good friends here to reinforce your self-image. They can be counted on, I’m sure. They’ll tell you, over and over again, that Dan Peterson and Bill Hamblin and all those FARMS-related bozos (not to mention amateurs like Will Schryver and Russ McGregor) are simply shaking in their boots at the prospect of having to engage a rhetorician of your stature.

Classic . . .

_________________... every man walketh in his own way, and after the image of his own god, whose image is in the likeness of the world, and whose substance is that of an idol ...

Whew! I miss a few days exploring a new alternate tuning and playing around with a new 35mm adapter for my Canon XH-A1, and I missed all kinds of fun!

beastlie:

Quote:

How surprising that a pretentious, flamboyant, self-flattering* man who prefers to comment on women’s cleavage than anything of substance would …

Just use this phrase as a preface to everything you ever say about me in the future. I like the way it rolls off the tongue.

And besides, you’re just jealous that I like Kimberly’s cleavage better than yours. But hey, at 50 what’s a woman to do? ;-)

Quote:

You are a pretentious, verbally flamboyant, melodramatic smoked mirror.

Either that, or I’m extraordinarily transparent and unwilling to mince words for the sake of maintaining diplomatic relations.

In any case, I’m gratified that you find me so singularly loathsome.

Quote:

Wow, thanks for the enlightenment regarding the nature of God! He's not a "moralist" and we'll be "surprised" to find out what he's really like …

Oh, He’s a moralist all right. Just not in the way you imagine the meaning of “moralist.” He’s the kind of moralist that recognizes the realities of the universe, and that

Quote:

… what is wrong in one circumstance may be, and often is, right under another …

Of course, the trick is being sufficiently discerning to know the difference, and obedient enough to restrain oneself when you don’t.

Quote:

*just for those folks who may have missed it, Will imagines himself singing to throngs of adoring crowds if he would sacrifice Mormonism, or something strange like that. Will is apparently quite interested in applause.

??? Do I? Would it benefit my musical career if I were to “sacrifice” Mormonism? It hasn’t seemed to help Talmage much.

Quote:

It is odd, however, that God was cool with the idea of SOME women having more than one so-called husband, but just had to draw the line when it came to EMMA. In fact, it is often striking how often “God” sounds just like someone named Joseph Smith would sound. Perhaps that is due to the fact that God and Joseph were so close and all.

No, it’s just because Emma was a champion bitch and no one else would have her except Joseph. (Needless to say, I don’t think I’ll be checking out the new “Emma Smith as the Exemplar for All Women” movie.)

Quote:

Yes, you are quite the disciple of Joseph, aren’t you? God is far more liberal and all that. Didn’t work well with Nancy, but no worry, it worked fine with others.

Poor Nancy will never know what she missed and will yet miss out on. She strikes me as intellectually rigid and physically frigid. I’m not even sure an alpha male like Joseph (or me, of course) could get a woman like Nancy to loosen up and get in touch with her entire soul. Oh, well, like you said, Nancy missed out, but there were others willing to enjoy what she was unwilling to.

Quote:

You may have to restrain yourself and limit yourself to one wife in this life …

Yes, I must.

Quote:

… and lord knows there must be so many groupies who would throw themselves at you if you were willing …

Well, as a matter of fact . . . there have been several over the years. But #1 has several qualities that have made it easier to choose fidelity at every tempting point along the way.

Quote:

… but no worry. You’ll be compensated in the next life.

Believe me, I’m looking forward to it. As you can well imagine, there is nothing an alpha male desires quite as much as a fecund field in which to plant his seed.

Quote:

But I bet that GOD will sound a lot like Will Schryver, and draw the line at the idea of your wife having more than one so-called husband.

I would submit cheerfully to the will of God in all things. Again:

Quote:

… what is wrong in one circumstance may be, and often is, right under another …

I never cease to find amusement in the elastic repugnance reflex exhibited by so many exmos towards things they are certain must be wrong in “heaven”, but which they would be reluctant to condemn on earth – at least in certain circumstances. Thus, many women are intrigued by (and perhaps even jealous of) Etta Place. But these same people find it outrageous to consider the possibility that God might ever sanction such a thing in the eternities.

Well, I say, “Who knows?” In the “here and now” I obey God’s commandments concerning marital fidelity because “He said so.” But I do not believe in any such thing as “eternal moral principles.” And, insofar as God is concerned, I have a large body of evidence that would support the argument that He defines “morality” to suit His purposes at any given time.

Quote:

The Big Boss rewarding his Alpha Male Dogs with access to more females.

Now that is an idea worthy of worship. Or, at least, it’s worthy of worship for some sexually frustrated man who lusts after a more “fruitful” eternity.

“Sexually frustrated”? Oh, right. In beastlie’s mind, all LDS men and women are “sexually frustrated”, “sexually repressed”, etc., etc. LDS women are institutionally programmed to consider sexuality as a “necessary evil” never to be “indulged in” for any purpose other than the procreative. If they ever accidentally allow themselves to enjoy being with their husbands – especially if it leads to (shudder!) orgasm – they should repent speedily and never let it happen again. And no faithful LDS man should ever be concerned with effecting the sexual gratification and fulfillment of his mate; he should simply place his seed in the appropriate repository (and only the appropriate repository!) with the greatest alacrity possible, and then hurry off to his next meeting.

Yes, dear beastlie, you know it all.

Quote:

You live in a fantasy world. You just don’t realize it isn’t limited to the stage. You live in a fantasy world of magic rocks, and where God is some sort of mafia boss who will reward your loyalty with more poontang one day.

But apparently even that bizarre fantasy world is preferable to the reality that would otherwise face you.

I readily admit to believing in a world where there are a great many things that you would not understand, including so-called “magic rocks” and the possibility of polyamory.

But please, dear beastlie, please describe for us what you mean by “the reality that would otherwise face you.” What is this presumably terrifying “reality” of which you speak?

_________________... every man walketh in his own way, and after the image of his own god, whose image is in the likeness of the world, and whose substance is that of an idol ...

Would it benefit my musical career if I were to “sacrifice” Mormonism? It hasn’t seemed to help Talmage much.

Which reminds me; Tal is trying to come across as rational and intellectually honest. He's often asking questions like "if you found out of was false, would you quit?" If he were more honest he might, with equal effort, renounce the terrible pop music he created years back.

No, it’s just because Emma was a champion bitch and no one else would have her except Joseph. (Needless to say, I don’t think I’ll be checking out the new “Emma Smith as the Exemplar for All Women” movie.)

Emma's a bitch? What if your wife had sex with over thirty men and didn't tell you about it? When you found out and, understandably, freaked, would she and others be within their rights to say you acted like a bit of a "bastard?" Why or why not?

LOL! Will, please post these thoughts of yours over on MAD for our general entertainment purposes. I beg of you. Please! Make sure you include your thoughts about God obviously having sex with Mary. And don't forget the part where you call Nancy frigid and Emma a bitch. Also don't forget the part about God's alpha males being rewarded with females. PLEASE!

_________________ We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.

But please, dear beastlie, please describe for us what you mean by “the reality that would otherwise face you.” What is this presumably terrifying “reality” of which you speak?

I have no idea. But I bet you do.

BTW, how does your enthusiasm for polyamoury make your wife feel? Does she mind that you make suggestive comments to women about their breasts? Do these things make her feel secure and confident? Do these things appease any concern she may have over your potential to "wander"?

_________________ We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.

You say I have a vested interest. What is it? I really want to know. Because, from my point of view, there are a host of sacrifices that must be made for me to remain faithful to the precepts of the gospel Joseph Smith taught. I would much rather tip back a Pilsner Urquel, or maybe smoke a joint or two on the weekends, or go on the road and rock the socks off adoring fans in smoky clubs, or get back the quarter of a million dollars I have paid in tithing and take my wife on a round-the-world second honeymoon for an entire year, or not have to waste hour upon hour in poorly-managed ecclesiastical meetings, or be able to tell a relief society counselor that she’s being a petty bitch for looking down her nose at another woman in the ward who isn’t quite as “orthodox” as she “ought” to be. I would no longer be mocked and ridiculed when I go among unbelieving friends or associates. I would no longer have to be associated with a religious belief system that is widely disparaged as the acme of stupidity and its adherents the most egregious examples of gullibility in our world today.

This is the post that gave me the idea that Will imagines “rocking the socks off adoring fans in smoky clubs” were he not LDS.

But I do think this post gives possible insight into what “reality” Will might otherwise face. He claims he has no vested interest, but there is a certain degree of guaranteed pain and angst involved when a middle-aged person comes to the conclusion that the church isn’t true after a lifetime of sacrifices made for it. Not only does middle age potentially bring the painful realization that one may not EVER “rock the socks off adoring fans”, but it potentially brings anger and depression if that realization is accompanied by the idea that it could have been different – and the reason the “other path” was chosen turns out to be bogus.
My boyfriend’s brother is a very talented musician. He believes that he could have had a career in music had he not chosen to marry young and have eight kids. He still believes in the church so feels that sacrifice was worthwhile, but that doesn’t stop him from needing anti-depressants.

_________________ We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.